2014 (4) TMI 254 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Liability of tax & interest Scope of challenge against notice of proposed tax u/s 25(1) of the KVAT Act & order passed in previous year - Held that - It is only a notice and it is very much open for the petitioner to submit detailed objections with reference to the actual facts and circumstances and as to the dispute with regard to the taxable event - It is not a fit case to interfere at this stage; more so when acceptability of the contention raised by the petitioner with reference to the actual facts will have to be ascertained with reference to the relevant records by the assessing authority - As such, an order has to be passed on the basis of the facts and evidence, which does not come with the realm of this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 - Whether the particular commodity is taxable or not, whether the case is fully in respect of such commodity, whether any other taxable sale is involved etc. are points, which are to be established by the assessee/petitioner before the assessing authority Matter remitted back to CTO for establishing the facts and figures and to have the matter finalized - Since the time stipulated in Ext.P4 notice is already over, the petitioner is granted a further period of three weeks to submit the objection in response to Ext.P4 - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P4 notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the assessment year 2011-2012 and Ext.P6 order passed for the previous assessment year 2010-2011.

Analysis:

1. Ext.P6 Order for Assessment Year 2010-2011:
The petitioner challenged the Ext.P6 order issued by the 1st respondent for the assessment year 2010-2011. The petitioner had received Ext.P3 notice in January 2013 and submitted detailed replies in May and June 2013. The order fixed the total tax liability with interest, and a demand notice was issued. The petitioner requested instalments for payment, which were granted. The petitioner satisfied the instalments, and nothing was pending for the assessment year 2010-2011. The court held that since all dues were cleared for the previous year, the challenge against Ext.P6 was not maintainable.

2. Challenge to Ext.P4 Notice for Assessment Year 2011-2012:
The petitioner contested the Ext.P4 notice issued for the assessment year 2011-2012. The court noted that Ext.P4 was only a notice, and the petitioner could submit detailed objections regarding the taxable event. The petitioner claimed no reply was submitted to Ext.P4. The court stated that the assessing authority needed to ascertain facts and evidence to determine tax liability. The court directed the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent to establish facts and figures for finalizing the matter. The petitioner was given three weeks to submit objections to Ext.P4, and proceedings were to be concluded within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

In conclusion, the petitioner's challenge against the Ext.P6 order for the assessment year 2010-2011 was dismissed as all dues were cleared. For the Ext.P4 notice for the assessment year 2011-2012, the petitioner was directed to submit objections to the assessing authority within three weeks for further proceedings to be concluded within six weeks from the date of the judgment.